Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biochemist
I agree with the pseudo science point. The only course of action is to defend the scientific method. The course of action is NOT to defend a specific position or theory.
|
Great! Now, I don't expect you to agree that ID is pseudo-science, and we can discuss that elsewhere, but your post is a great example of how people who are enamoured of pseudo-scientific opinions argue that they are valid science; something that means that simple defense of the scientific method in abstract is effectively useless. So I'll apologize in advance for using you as an example of what I mean:
Rule 1: Denigrate existing accepted scientific theories by saying that they are not "proven." This sets up the argument that any theory is open to question, and thus any other opinion is equally valid. This is most effective by setting up an objection that is simple and easy to understand, even if it is misleading:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biochemist
Buff, you and I have argued before about my position that the evidence in support of speciation by mutation is thin. I don't mind folks talking about the evidence in support of it. I really mind folks assuming it is "proven".
|
This particular argument (no proof that mutation causes speciation) I've come to discover in my recent research is a statement that is used exclusively by proponents of ID, and Evolutionary scientists all have to respond, "well, its not that simple, you see speciation is in the eye of the beholder" and a long list of other such complications. This is very effective because it forces the scientist into a position of having to educate those who are not familiar with the complications to lose the attention of the audience, and effectively lose the argument. Of course, the critical issue is the attack is based on the notion of "not proven" when the state of "proven" is uncommon in natural sciences in general, but more importantly is *not* an essential element of the scientific method. By simply saying its not proven conclusively, it makes it easier to argue that opinions with convincing but not conclusive evidence are no better than opinions with no evidence whatsoever:
Rule 2: Propose a theory and say that its not contradicted by any data:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biochemist
Anyone could argue that ID is a different view of the existing scientific-method-supported facts. Anyone could offer scientific-method-compliant studies to support their positions.
|
ID certainly is not inconsistent with observed facts, but that's somewhat irrelevant, since there's no testable way to validate any of the proposed conclusions. Saying that an alternate theory of flight is that angels fly behind birds and planes and hold them up invisibly and that planes crash when evil people fly in them. This theory is completely consistent with observed facts. Its fanciful and entertaining! And *no one* can prove it wrong! Is it scientific? Well, you'd really need to come up with some experiment to detect the Angels. You could come up with an theory and even data that might show that current theories about lift and turbulence could not possibly explain the data, but unfortunately, due to the scientific method, you could not conclude convincingly that therefore Angels must be the cause.
Rule 3: Since pseudo-science usually ends up getting hit with data that often disproves it, pick arguments that can be endlessly regenerated: <insert Irreducible Complexity argument here, which is the only supporting "evidence" of ID, is a wonderful misapplication of probability, and proves nothing, but which you thankfully did not mention!> The great thing about ID is that it has an endless supply of examples of stuff that's "too complex" to explain by natural processes. In the case of the "angels cause flight theory" it was the obvious explanation 500 years ago, and would have been used by any self-respecting naturalist theologian to explain the observed data. Lo and behold along comes Otto Lillienthal, the Wright Bros. and a host of others to follow who turn flight into an activity easily explainable without supernatural causes. ID actually does fine until it gets to the point where the jump is made from "too complex for us to explain" to "it must have been designed". The scientific method *always* allows future discoveries to replace currently accepted theories, but does not the allow the notion that the *absence* of data or theories *justifies* another theory without any backing evidence. Sure stuff is complex. Sure its not always explainable in a "proven" fashion. But that last leap *is* one of faith, and that is what keeps it from being a scientific theory.
Erich von Daniken was also famous for this tactic when in his public appearances was faced with clear evidence that his arguments were false, and would simply pull out another picture of a spacecraft runway or figure only visible from the sky. If your theory is a conjecture that has many different applications, you can endlessly come up with examples that can only disproved piecemeal, because you're not making any predictions that can be verified or validated (note, not "proven"!).
Rule 4: Make the issue political, or accuse the opposition of politics:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biochemist
Politics are not science. ... Most of this discussion about "religion" in science is not religion at all. It is political behavior of an advocacy group.
|
In this case you switch sides to the scientific and true religious view. (Yay!
) The most vocal ID is political, and one of its primary sideshow arguments is that disallowing teaching of ID is "religious persecution": to this extent it is about power. Its political proponents do see it as a zero-sum game, with the current "tactics" to "use ID as a stepping stone to Creationism" and to "teach the controversy, so people won't know its not science." Machiavellian to the max! Its of course notable that those who are most sincere about ID--and I mentioned Discovery Institute, which I think is political, but they believe in "non-Creationist" ID enough to advocate *not* teaching it in schools until they've had the time to come up with more "scientifically acceptable proof"--do not have an agenda, but also are willing to work patiently for acceptance. That's a good thing.
One thing that comes out of all this that *is* in line with your argument is that the worst thing for science to do is dismiss pseudo-science out of hand. It should be considered and refuted just as any other theory. To do anything else rightly does invite the public at large into thinking that the "ivory tower types" just won't listen. Its tiring and in spite of pretty clear evidence that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be violated, we will be endlessly explaining why various perpetual motion machines won't work. Simply pointing to the second law *doesn't* cut it! You do need to explain to the *proponents* and immediate observers why their particular machines won't work (of course, if they build one and it doesn't work, they "just haven't perfected it yet, but it will work"!).
The only issue I see here is that there is a danger in "making all opinions equally valid theories" which actually forces everyone to become a scientist, when we know that they won't. As an advanced society, there is a need for a scientific community that can be trusted to work through issues and present to the rest of the populace the "probable truth". The thing that keeps this honest is an open society that keeps a "scientist caste" from becoming in-bred and untrustworthy. To this extent, attacks by pseudo-science perform a useful purpose, but if science is taught to the general population as something where any idea is valid and facts are all twisted to suit political agendas, then we are on a sorry road indeed.
Thanks for being such a good sport, Bio!
Cheers,
Buffy
